Shravan Kumar Jain S/o Bhairav Lal, Kota Phramceuticals R/o F v. Connected

: Mr. Ajit Maloo, Mr. Pratyush Sharma Mr Ajay Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakshit Jain for Mr. Himanshu Sogani Ms. Pooja Nuwal in appeal No. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 29/08/2025 Order

1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of a dispute between the common parties as regards the one property and the parties have also entered into compromise which resolving their dispute as agitated in both the appeals, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Counsels appearing for the respective parties jointly submit that the Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 referred the matters to the Mediation Centre to explore all the possibilities of amicable settlement in between the parties.

3. The Appeal No. 698/2023 has been filed by the appellant-Shravan Kumar Jain against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, S.No.2, Kota, in Civil Suit No.95/2011 (CIS No.395/2014), whereby the suit filed by the respondent [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (3 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] /plaintiff-Arun Kumar Jain for seeking possession over the suit property was decreed.

4. The Appeal No. 699/2023 has been filed by the same appellant-Shravan Kumar Jain against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, S.No.2, Kota (for short ‘the Court below’) in Civil Suit No.105/2011 (CIS No.470/2014), whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration, cancellation of lease agreement dated

01.10.2014 registered on 15.06.2005 and permanent injunction as regards the same property was dismissed.

5. After the matter being referred to the Mediation Centre with the conciliation made by the Mediator in between the parties, both the parties entered into the compromise and agreed as under:- “That the parties to this compromise deed have decided that the parties of the second part will pay a sum of rupees 40 lakhs as compensation to the party of the first part and in lieu thereof the party of the first part will abide by the orders dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge Kota No. 2 and will peacefully vacate the premises F-188 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Road No. 5 Kota in pursuance of the order passed by the Additional District Judge Kota No. 2 and shall accept the complete ownership of the party of the second part and their family members. [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (4 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] That the Additional District Judge Kota No. 2 vide its order dated 23.08.2025 had passed order directing the party of the first part to pay mesne profits amounting to approximately Rs. 40 lakhs to the party of the second part. The parties hereto have decided that the party of the second part will forgo the above mentioned amount in totality in terms of this compromise. That the party of the first part confirms that he accepts the complete rights and title of the party of the second part and Smt. Sunita Jain Wife of Late Shri Arun Kumar Jain and Smt. Ankita Jain Daughter of Late Shri Arun Kumar Jain over the disputed premises F-188 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Road No. 5 Kota. The party of the first part will never claim any right over the property in future and will withdraw every case filed by him from all the courts regarding the issuance of lease in favour of the party of the second part and their family members. That out of the total compensation of Rs. 40 lakhs to be given to party of the first part by the party of the second part in terms of this compromise, the party of the second part shall pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the party of the first part on or before 30.04.2025 by way of the demand draft or a cheque from the account of Smt. Sunita Jain Wife of Late Shri Arun Kumar Jain. Immediately after payment of the above mentioned amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, the party of the first part, shall file an application for withdrawal of the above mentioned appeals before the Rajasthan High Court and shall [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (5 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] request for withdrawal of the appeals before the court on the next date of hearing i.e.

08.05.2025. That the party of the first part shall vacate the premises F-188 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Road No. 5 Kota in totality by 22.06.2025 i.e. two months from the day of the execution of this compromise deed. The party of the second part shall be liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of demand draft on the day the complete possession is handed over to them by the party of the first part. That the party of the first part shall withdraw any case or proceeding pending before any court or authority and shall accept the rights and title of the party of the second part and their family over the premises F-188 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Road No. 5 Kota. The party of the second part or their family members will not claim any cost of litigation or other damages from the party of the first part. Both the parties shall bear their respective cost and expenses.”

6. The compromise has been attested in the presence of Mediator and two witnesses.

7. Counsels appearing for both the parties submit that both the appeals be disposed of in terms of the compromise and since the parties have resolved their dispute through Mediation as ordered by the Court vide order dated

08.04.2025, the Court fees paid by the parties while filing [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (6 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] the appeals as well as the plaints be ordered to be refunded to them.

8. Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act provides for refund of fees. The said provision states as under:- “65-B. Refund of Fees.- Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908) an the matter is settled by one of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.”

9. A perusal of the above, clearly leaves no matter of doubt that, as long as the matter is settled between the parties qua their dispute, as envisaged under Section 89 CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of full amount of the fee paid in respect of the court fees affixed on the plaint.

10. Reading of Section 89 CPC also is a complimentary with the language used in Section 65-B, ibid. All that has to be ascertained, as per Section 89 CPC, by the Court is that the settlement is (a) acceptable to both the parties and (b) settlement has been brought forth by way of alternative dispute resolution i.e. either arbitration, or conciliation; or through Lok Adalat; or mediation, as the case may be.

11. For ready reference, Section 89 CPC is reproduced hereinbelow:- [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (7 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] “89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.--(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for:-- (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat: or (d) mediation. (2) Were a dispute has been referred-- (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act; (b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall .apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat; (c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (8 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] (d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.”

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jage Ram v. Ved Kaur & Ors. (Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 723/2023, decided on

28.01.2025 has observed in para No.6 as under:- “6. The refund of court fees is permissible only if the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.”

13. The parties to the present litigation on being both the appeals referred to the Mediation Centre for exploring the possibilities of the settlement after persuasion of the Mediator, have entered into the compromise and settled the dispute for all the times to come. Settlement of the dispute through Mediation deserves to be encouraged by allowing refund of Court Fees because many a time the litigant feels that if he settles the dispute through Mediation, at-least he may get something in the form of refund of Court Fees. If in case of settlement of dispute in between the parties through Mediation, the Court Fees is not refunded then in that situation the parties may feel that let the matter be adjudicated on merits as they will not be getting anything by compromise. The law framers with intent to get the disputes settled outside the Court by Arbitration, Conciliation, [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (9 of 10) [CFA-698/2023] Mediation etc., have inserted the provisions in the form of Section 89 in the CPC and to encourage such settlement, Section 65-B for refund of the fees has been inserted in the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act.

14. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the legal position, as discussed above, the Court deems just and proper to order for refund of the Court Fees to the concerned appellant as regards Court Fee affixed in appeals. Since the suits were decided on merits after recording of evidence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get refund of Court Fee affixed along-with the plaints.

15. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of in the light of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed. The judgement and decree dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, S.No.2, Kota, in both the Civil Suits No.95/2011 (CIS No.395/2014) and 105/2011 (CIS No.470/2014) are quashed and set aside.

16. The Registry is directed to issue a Certificate of refund of Court Fees affixed in both the appeals to seek full refund of the Court Fees from the Collector in terms of Section 65B of the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act.

17. In view of the order passed in the main appeals, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:35753] (10 of 10) [CFA-698/2023]

19. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar-66-67